Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

P.S. The mackintosh contained two matchsticks that appeared to be placed in a folded seam. It's possible that they were scooped up from the floor. But if you or anyone else has ideas on this, please say. It's always bugged me!

Hi Antony,

Couldn’t Wallace have put the matches in the mackintosh pocket? Maybe during his morning round he lit a cigarette in someone’s house but there wasn’t an ashtray available so he just put the match or matches into his pocket? As the mackintosh was bunched up beneath Julia maybe they just fell out and got caught in the folds?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

Couldn’t Wallace have put the matches in the mackintosh pocket? Maybe during his morning round he lit a cigarette in someone’s house but there wasn’t an ashtray available so he just put the match or matches into his pocket? As the mackintosh was bunched up beneath Julia maybe they just fell out and got caught in the folds?

Hi Herlock

It's possible but whether it is probable, I think, depends on where the matches were found in relation to the pockets, which of course we don't know. In my experience, the friction of the pocket sides on something so light as a match would tend to keep them in position rather than let them slip out. But I have no alternative to scenario to offer at the moment. AMB.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Antony, to save me spending ages searching can you point me toward where the matches are mentioned?

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH, you may be correct. The apparent scene of premeditation is a good point. But we all agree that if Wallace did it he was still lucky not to get blood on him and, similarly, sometimes an opportunistic murder scene does not look messy. Further, the lack of noise (Julia was extremely diffident and frail) or positioning of the body does not rule out the accomplice theory. Indeed, the positioning of the body in the parlour with evidence of the fire having been lit points to two things, in my opinion:

a) A visitor actually called.

b) Wallace killed Julia in the front room to make it appear like (a).

Now (a) is of course consistent with Accomplice. The position of the body in the parlour does not preclude the scenario which I describe in my book for Accomplice. Read it, WWH. Critique it. It might be wrong, but it's not as implausible as you suggest. However, where all theories break down, in my view, apart from Wallace, is the mackintosh. The person with the greatest motivation to prevent blood spatter is Wallace. And even if Wallace said to a collaborator "kill my wife using the mackintosh to keep things clean" (a little unlikely I would say), why was it placed under Julia's body? Could it be a subtle act to make the deceased more comfortable? Again, that would point to Wallace more than anyone else. The conjunction of both is a powerful argument - perhaps the most powerful - for Herlock.

P.S. The mackintosh contained two matchsticks that appeared to be placed in a folded seam. It's possible that they were scooped up from the floor. But if you or anyone else has ideas on this, please say. It's always bugged me!

P.P.S. If the scene firmly points to premeditation, in your view, there is no need to look beyond Wallace, as I say in my book.

It is ridiculous dude, I'm sorry if it offends you, but man... It really is. I mean, there could be a 10,000 word post on why. But I mean just look at some of the things written there. Julia paralyzed by fear so that she could not shout out - well, how very convenient. Not just a stretch to make the theory fit, I'm sure.

What's this about a ring with an M on it? Or him saying it was an 18th birthday? It's like partly fictionalized writing and it makes it hard for someone who does not know the case to disregard those things.

It's like, a whole theory based around a few convenient things which fit, when it absolutely breaks apart everything else. Like I've said many times now... Put two people in the home, you can make a case. Have a scenario where the burglar knows he must kill Julia because she KNOWS him/her and thus would be a witness (this has been seen in other true crimes). Or even a scenario where Wallace really WAS cheating, and an extremely jealous woman went in there to kill Julia Wallace - and, to an extent, to possibly even frame Wallace for the murder, if she felt jilted.

I mean, there's a lot more plausible scenarios. And some SIGNIFICANTLY more plausible versions of the scenarios you've proposed. I see even that you say her arm was gripped with "python like strength". Was there actually evidence of bruising on her arms in the coroner's report? I mean come on man... Just read it again and tell me you still believe this.

Julia's silence is SOOOO shoehorned in to make it fit. Quite a few things are actually. All just to make sense of someone other than Parry being able to have committed the crime. I'd be even more inclined to believe it was some random chess club member who knew Wallace's address but was unknown to Julia (if such a person existed). Just sayin'.

[ColdCaseJury]

But I mean just look at some of the things written there. Julia paralyzed by fear so that she could not shout out - well, how very convenient. Not just a stretch to make the theory fit, I'm sure.

Well let's take this one first, WWH. What makes you so confident that Julia - a diffident and frail woman - would shout out? Scream? Bang on the walls? Perhaps you've never been in a situation when you've been paralysed by fear, but it does happen. I know this is not your only objection, but I hope others will see it's not impossible that a shy, diffident 69-year-old artist might not scream out, or bang on the walls. As I wrote: "Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now."

But everyone is free to reject the scenario. The reason I include reconstructions is because it's so easy to say something rather than to show it with detail. But pause for thought for a moment, WWH. I know at one time you believed the Wallace's cat was catnapped by the Johnson's and used as a bait to get Julia to leave the house (correct me if I'm wrong). Now my conjecture of Julia's possible reaction is based on her character, the catnap is based on what? The fact the cat was missing on the 20th (and possibly before) is only evidence that the cat was missing, possibly hiding out during the inclement weather, as many cat owner's will attest can happen. So, without other evidence, is this also a stretch to make a theory? Perhaps you would like to offer a reconstruction on how the cat was taken and escaped. As a writer, the image I have of this scenario is the Johnston's father stroking the cat like a sinister Blofeld in the front room of No. 31 until the correct hour to release her. Please disabuse me of this image!

Of course, I don't want you to waste your time writing a 10k critique. Just take pages 120-121, the first two pages of the reconstruction, and fire away. I will answer your points as honestly as I can. Where you make a good criticism, I will acknowledge. Where I differ, I will say why. I don't think I can do more as an author. This is not to defend Accomplice as the correct theory, but only to try to persuade others that it has a probability greater than 1 in 12,000 (or the probability of getting struck by lightning).

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well let's take this one first, WWH. What makes you so confident that Julia - a diffident and frail woman - would shout out? Scream? Bang on the walls? Perhaps you've never been in a situation when you've been paralysed by fear, but it does happen. I know this is not your only objection, but I hope others will see it's not impossible that a shy, diffident 69-year-old artist might not scream out, or bang on the walls. As I wrote: "Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now."

Very. Very. Very improbable. Are you a legit true crime fanatic or just interested in cold cases? Little old ladies have been brutally slain in their own homes many times. Believe me, people fight and make noise. Others should see that it is essentially impossible... And the claim that she was physically dragged into the parlor and thrown down onto the chair - again obviously making no noise - but where's the coroner's evidence that she had been grabbed in this manner? Does it exist? If it does it's not proof (since she could've been grabbed in any other scenario too), but if it DOESN'T then it pretty much proves this did not happen. Period.

But everyone is free to reject the scenario. The reason I include reconstructions is because it's so easy to say something rather than to show it with detail. But pause for thought for a moment, WWH. I know at one time you believed the Wallace's cat was catnapped by the Johnson's and used as a bait to get Julia to leave the house (correct me if I'm wrong). Now my conjecture of Julia's possible reaction is based on her character, the catnap is based on what? The fact the cat was missing on the 20th (and possibly before) is only evidence that the cat was missing, possibly hiding out during the inclement weather, as many cat owner's will attest can happen. So, without other evidence, is this also a stretch to make a theory? Perhaps you would like to offer a reconstruction on how the cat was taken and escaped. As a writer, the image I have of this scenario is the Johnston's father stroking the cat like a sinister Blofeld in the front room of No. 31 until the correct hour to release her. Please disabuse me of this image!

No I don't really believe they tried to lure Julia from the home by using the cat. The only thing that convinces me is the coincidence matches up well with dementia'd Johnston's confession.

I have come to believe that, more likely, the cat was removed by Wallace himself. This may have been for noise or any other inteference reasons, Like cats don't really make a lot of noise but... I don't know. It may have been given to someone to gain entry... Either way, but it seems unnecessary to use the cat for entry in that way. It MIGHT be a coincidence but I don't really think so due to the weather... Especially when you consider that the cat magically reappeared the night Julia had been killed.

Of course, I don't want you to waste your time writing a 10k critique. Just take pages 120-121, the first two pages of the reconstruction, and fire away. I will answer your points as honestly as I can. Where you make a good criticism, I will acknowledge. Where I differ, I will say why. I don't think I can do more as an author. This is not to defend Accomplice as the correct theory, but only to try to persuade others that it has a probability greater than 1 in 12,000 (or the probability of getting struck by lightning).

I have the Kindle version of your book, so no page numbers. Why must I be confined to those two pages? The start of the theory is the entire reason it even exists, because it initially makes sense. It's the rest of it that proves it to be the lowest probability scenario as you probably know... When it starts getting into the pantomine of Julia discovering the burglar then losing her voice and being dragged into the parlor, thrown onto the chair, then without any defensive wounding or struggle, an iron bar picked up and smashed down on her head.

It's clearly fantastical. Do you not agree or see why this is? With only minor effort you could construct a much better and more plausible accomplice theory. Iron out the Laurel and Hardy sketch tier stuff, find a way to make it believable. It's too late now seeing as it's published, but really, it needs an update.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m the last person to defend the Accomplice theory but on the subject of a killer getting Julia into the Parlour and her not making any noise it’s not impossible that someone could simply have said ““keep quiet and you’ll come to no harm.”” A scared Julia does as she’s told. An unexpected blow from an iron bar wouldn’t have been heard outside of that room. No noise.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’m the last person to defend the Accomplice theory but on the subject of a killer getting Julia into the Parlour and her not making any noise it’s not impossible that someone could simply have said ““keep quiet and you’ll come to no harm.”” A scared Julia does as she’s told. An unexpected blow from an iron bar wouldn’t have been heard outside of that room. No noise.

I was thinking a hand over the mouth but what you said is more plausible.

But you see what I mean, the accomplice theory blatantly needs reworking to enter the realm of plausibility.

Sadly even your suggestion has slight issue though. One example: I'd expect at least some initial commotion upon discovery of the thief. It's possible he'd preempt her but I should suspect her to intiially be loud. The shoehorning of Julia's mutism is dishonest IMO, we know she screamed when Cadwallader walked into their home, but just in general it's trying to make the puzzle pieces fit when the shapes are all wrong.

There are also other aspects of the accomplice theory which have not been thought through very well. Think Julia admitting him to wait for Wallace, instead of admitting him to leave a note as she had done before for others.

Think of Julia's mental state when she has found that the person in her home is a severe threat. She will be on HIGH alert. Now, apparently she's comfortable letting the guy pick up a weapon and walk over to her and we see no dedensive wounds etc. Now unless she was lighting the fire and hit from the blindside, I reject that, I suggest he had his own weapon in such a scenario (where she's on the chair, as Antony suggested).

Further we have to question the motive of someone who is a total stranger to Julia bludgeoning her to death instead of doing a runner. And the likelihood of such clinical containment of blood that is not tracked out of the room etc. should it have not been part of the plan.

We can go real into depth with it. With effort we could make a plausible version of the accomplice theory. Although I tend to believe it would be harder to do than making an ironclad case for Wallace or Wallace + helpers...

Or even the completely unexplored angle of a jealous mistress. Has anyone ever contemplated that possibility? What is everyone's thoughts on that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or even the completely unexplored angle of a jealous mistress. Has anyone ever contemplated that possibility? What is everyone's thoughts on that?

Ive never heard of a jealous mistress being suggested as a solution. I once came up with a scenario for Wallace plus female accomplice which, in theory, answered a couple of the main questions that are raised against Wallace being guilty but there’s no evidence for it of course. I understand that there were rumours of Wallace having another woman but again there’s absolutely no evidence for this and I’m never quite sure if the rumour was current before or at the time of the murder or whether it was something that surfaced later on?

Lets face it though, it’s pretty much a cliche. The milk man, the rent man, the insurance man, visiting while the husbands at work. It’s almost Benny Hill. Rumours are inevitable. If Wallace did have a mistress he certainly didn’t continue seeing her after the trial and appeal.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ive never heard of a jealous mistress being suggested as a solution. I once came up with a scenario for Wallace plus female accomplice which, in theory, answered a couple of the main questions that are raised against Wallace being guilty but there’s no evidence for it of course. I understand that there were rumours of Wallace having another woman but again there’s absolutely no evidence for this and I’m never quite sure if the rumour was current before or at the time of the murder or whether it was something that surfaced later on?

Lets face it though, it’s pretty much a cliche. The milk man, the rent man, the insurance man, visiting while the husbands at work. It’s almost Benny Hill. Rumours are inevitable. If Wallace did have a mistress he certainly didn’t continue seeing her after the trial and appeal.

The rumors were in fact contemporary, that is what led police to want to question Sarah Draper if I remember rightly, as someone said he was having an affair with his maid... But moreso the rumors were levelled at Amy Wallace. There isn't evidence, no, so you'd have a very difficult time coming up with any proof...

Though one thing I will say, is that Wallace was known to often visit and be quite close to Amy - at the same time, Amy's husband Joseph was in another country, so she had no sexual outlet... Further on top of this, we know that Julia did not really enjoy the company of Amy - but Amy dropped by on the day of the murder - a flying visit. Apparently to offer her tickets to attend a show with her? Now, if they weren't such good friends, perhaps you might see that as unusual... But moreso, the important part of her testimony, was that Julia had told her that Wallace was off to meet a client in the Calderstones area on a matter of business... One wonders, was this a lie invented to support the idea that Wallace was truly tricked into going out on business?... We also have the statement from Wallace that a "dog whip" had been missing for 12 months - an odd thing to randomly point out - and there are rumors that Amy indulged in flagellation while in Malaya.

It would be incredibly difficult to come up with anything concrete, but I think it's possible... And we must remember that Julia was quite old, and allegedly incontinent according to some sources - so perhaps she was unable to provide Wallace with sexual satisfaction.

Something for your consideration. But yeah, like I said, to formulate this into anything convincing would be very difficult, and require investigative journalism to uncover new evidence.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Having spent time away I have thought about the case more.

It does appear to me that William himself probably killed his wife, and yes probably did it wearing only a mackintosh. I mean, Lizzie Borden got away with it and she killed two people, with a hatchet of all things. I think he probably removed the cat from the home on purpose and stowed it somewhere, and elements of the crime scene may well have been staged in advance, such as the removal of the cupboard door (if a burglar had yanked it off - first that serves no purpose, but also would have been noisy one would expect). The total lack of noise does seem to suggest that nobody else entered that home, and the Johnstons claimed they could hear through the walls pretty easily, and had a family member actually in the room directly adjacent to the parlor... I would say he then potentially burned some items, but the mack would not burn fully so he was forced to ditch it due to time constraints... Something along those lines.

I have been thinking also about an outside possibility, that William is innocent and AMY is guilty. Like I'm picturing a scenario where Amy is in love with Wallace but he loves Julia and won't leave her (or he cut off an affair with Amy, or wouldn't be unfaithful? I don't know, but everyone knows they were weirdly tight)... People ask "how did the perpetrator even know Wallace would be going on that trip?", well Amy visited that day, and extracted that information from Julia, so she could be certain that William was going on that trip that night.

That brings us back to that weird "umbrella man" suspect who was dropped off in Sefton Park, within walking distance of Amy's pad, considering a male voice was heard by Beattie.

I do maintain that the Johnstons proveably lied on a couple of occasions and they should be looked into. The only thing is, if the Johnstons and Wallace were in some scheme, then they surely would have removed the mackintosh from the scene, unless it served some sort of purpose. But it seems to do nothing but incriminate Wallace and nothing else... Unless only Mr Johnston was involved, and Mrs Johnston kept in the dark. I still fail to believe he didn't know her name. But also the lies in the reports he gave to the newspapers. Just sayin'...

It could also be a chess club member, but we don't have access to the information we need really... Like how frequently Amy actually visited the Wallace's home (while Wallace was out at work), whether there WAS anyone at chess who could've done this - his opponent turned up late, right?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi WWH,

Its all been quiet in Wallace-land. To be honest I haven’t thought much about the case recently (mainly due to life and events) but I certainly haven’t lost interest. It’s certainly a pity the way that the thread faded out.

. Having spent time away I have thought about the case more.

It does appear to me that William himself probably killed his wife, and yes probably did it wearing only a mackintosh. I mean, Lizzie Borden got away with it and she killed two people, with a hatchet of all things. I think he probably removed the cat from the home on purpose and stowed it somewhere, and elements of the crime scene may well have been staged in advance, such as the removal of the cupboard door (if a burglar had yanked it off - first that serves no purpose, but also would have been noisy one would expect). The total lack of noise does seem to suggest that nobody else entered that home, and the Johnstons claimed they could hear through the walls pretty easily, and had a family member actually in the room directly adjacent to the parlor... I would say he then potentially burned some items, but the mack would not burn fully so he was forced to ditch it due to time constraints... Something along those lines.

You know that you won’t get any argument from me on the Wallace guilty and alone point but there is still much that we don’t know and probably never will. By the way, I don’t know much about the Borden Case apart from the basics but I’ve been considering buying the new book on the case called The Trial Of Lizzie Borden by Cara Robertson. She’s been researching for something like 15 years and the reviews have been really good. I might give it a go. We agree on some things and disagree on others. I, for example, don’t think that the cat played any part in this. I certainly agree on the use of the mackintosh but I also think that it might have been used as a shield rather than simply being worn. I know that you’re not keen on that idea. One thing that I did find interesting though was that in his John Bull articles Wallace himself made the suggestion of it being used as a shield. Did he know something? Was he gloating? The cupboard door just seems too random to be a part of any robbery especially when we have to consider the complete lack of evidence of any search for cash or valuables. And as you say there’s the issue of noise (especially if Julia was in the Parlour whilst Qualtrough had excused himself to use the bathroom. I think that the burning of the Mac was accidental and that the singe marks on Julia’s skirt point to them occurring at the same time and for the same reason.

.
I have been thinking also about an outside possibility, that William is innocent and AMY is guilty. Like I'm picturing a scenario where Amy is in love with Wallace but he loves Julia and won't leave her (or he cut off an affair with Amy, or wouldn't be unfaithful? I don't know, but everyone knows they were weirdly tight)... People ask "how did the perpetrator even know Wallace would be going on that trip?", well Amy visited that day, and extracted that information from Julia, so she could be certain that William was going on that trip that night.

An interesting though. Not only did Amy know that Julia was going to be alone in the house but she knew that Julia would have let her in. We have no evidence of an affair though. There’s the issue of the phone call of course. If there’s anything that I feel certain of in this case it’s that the person that made the call was involved in Julia’s murder in some way.

.
That brings us back to that weird "umbrella man" suspect who was dropped off in Sefton Park, within walking distance of Amy's pad, considering a male voice was heard by Beattie.

I get worried when I hear “umbrella man” for obvious reasons.

.
I do maintain that the Johnstons proveably lied on a couple of occasions and they should be looked into. The only thing is, if the Johnstons and Wallace were in some scheme, then they surely would have removed the mackintosh from the scene, unless it served some sort of purpose. But it seems to do nothing but incriminate Wallace and nothing else... Unless only Mr Johnston was involved, and Mrs Johnston kept in the dark. I still fail to believe he didn't know her name. But also the lies in the reports he gave to the newspapers. Just sayin'...

I’m unsure about lying to be honest. There are certainly inconsistencies. Your point about the mackintosh is a good one. I don’t think that the Johnston’s were involved but it’s worthwhile looking at all angles of course.

.
It could also be a chess club member, but we don't have access to the information we need really... Like how frequently Amy actually visited the Wallace's home (while Wallace was out at work), whether there WAS anyone at chess who could've done this - his opponent turned up late, right?

The main issue that I have with a stranger is that this seems like a deliberate murder to me. By someone that wanted Julia dead. This doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been someone that hasn’t been mentioned yet of course. We can’t say that this would be impossible but we have nothing to work with.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Indeed the thread is rather barren which is a shame as it's a great case.

When you look at it I mean the two real probabilities are only a murder or robbery motive.

Because no sound was heard and how Julia was positioned etc. it seems very likely she did not catch a burglar so I think that can be ruled out.

So then you either have someone who went in there to murder Julia and staged the robbery, or someone who went in there to rob the home and planned to kill her in order to enable them to do that. So you either have someone with an interest in killing Julia for whatever reason, or someone who is willing to commit murder to steal money.

Another possibility is the person did not know Wallace had a wife or thought she was not there and managed to enter the home without signs of break in. There was a housebreaker in the area and if only somewhat familiar with the Wallaces may well have thought he lived alone... Of course the issue still would be where Julia was found first and foremost. Would she ever go into the parlor of her own accord? Was she planning for or already had a visitor over? Was the coat really used to protect from the cold? If this is the scenario then you have to imagine that the burglar checked around the house (or was somehow mega quiet in looting the box), was surprised to find Julia, and killed her with an unspecified blunt weapon... Would this attacker then grab the men's jacket and place it under her to frame the husband (not that this was the original plan, but a quick thinking decision)? How would he escape undetected? Did he live in one of the homes joining the back passage? Or had another place to go very close by where he was unlikely to be seen by anyone? Did he just cut through a tonne of alleys and parks?

If you can place Julia in the parlor without having admitted a guest then it's possible. Would she set up the parlor for William's return for some unknown reason?

Because bloodied assailants were not seen then it makes it most likely someone lived in a house very close by or had a getaway car ready or something of that nature (or they planned to kill her and had means of accounting for this factor). For them to be unseen it's more probably they would leave that house by the back door and get to a safe spot where they're safe from being sighted within the shortest time possible...

If Julia admitted the burglar WHO out of anyone she knows would be evil enough to plan her murder just to steal money? Was anyone particularly hard up? Why would they not invent a story to get both Wallace and his wife out of the home if they knew her? I'm sure that would be especially easy as a family friend. Maybe that would be too suspicious or hard for a mysterious caller to achieve.

---

If it was a murder motive or planned killing...

It was said Julia had no enemies. How can anyone be truly sure of that? As I mentioned Amy is a potential enemy if she had a thing for/with William while Joseph was off in another country.

Did she have a secret lover? Given her age etc. you would think not. Women that old tend to not have sexual interest... Something which could've been problematic for Wallace who was probably still young enough to want sex.

Both Amy and William probably have a need for sex that is likely not being fulfilled by their spouses. Take careful note of that fact because it makes an affair way more likely and if there was an affair there is motive for one of them, or both of them, to kill Julia. Perhaps to silence her if she found out, or for Amy out of jealousy/spite. That is actually the most solid motive you can piece together from the case facts and common in real life.

COULD Gordon Parry have any reason to want Julia dead? Was his alibi coerced by his father? Would he really be so evil as to willingly kill her to steal a few pounds? Did William trick him into placing a call and have him in mind to take the fall for it?

---

I'm thinking the #1 suspicion would be a Wallace murder with the motive of keeping his wife quiet about the affair he was having with his brother's wife after she found out.

#2 suspicion to be honest I'm gonna go with the housebreaker. The housebreaker was likely a local given the homes hit and the known key issue. So he may have known Wallace lived there and his work habits, but for some reason was unaware of the reclusive Julia... Or may have known Julia lived there but wanted to capitalize on the collection schedule to maximize profits and come up with a riskier plan or even plan her death. Maybe they thought if they outright planned for Julia and Wallace to go out they'd be blatant suspects - or couldn't find a way to get both of them out under the guise of being a stranger... In that case I'd say the housebreaker was most probably Mr. Johnston but there's another possibility...

Gordon Parry is a murderer or in the housebreaker syndicate.

I think either his alibi could have been coerced and he was a very evil person who didn't mind killing Julia for money. Or he had a friend involved. But in either case the plan was legitimately to kill Julia and then steal the money after killing her. But I don't think he'd willingly plot to kill her.

Maybe just meant for the pal to subdue her and it went wrong. Like maybe he hit her to knock her out and she seemed to stop breathing so he battered her to ensure she couldn't speak since now it'd be attempted murder (or even murder if she became conscious, gave her testimony, then died).

If this happened then again I'd think the jacket was placed to pin suspicion on Wallace. And Parry was the type of person to be involved in a housebreaking syndicate. He easily could have conspired with the other housebreakers to go in, wack the old lady unconscious, and take the money. Quite easily actually... Ofc the sneak thief idea is complere ridiculousness.

---

Why didn't a burglar take other items? If you just killed someone you may not want to risk being in possession of items that belonged to the murdered woman. Selling those items or being caught with them would be a death sentence. Money doesn't have a trail.

So there you have it. I most suspect Wallace with a motive related to an affair, or the housebreaker who might Johnston or Parry (Parry if involved in a housebreaking syndicate, planning to attack her then steal the money).

Johnston might also be in syndicate of course (multiple streets were hit with dupe key) so same thing as with Parry in that case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed the thread is rather barren which is a shame as it's a great case.

Hi WWH,

I can only blame the A6 case for missing your post. When there’s a new post on that thread there’s no indication on the main forum. I should have checked. Good points as ever. I’ll just put in a few comments.

When you look at it I mean the two real probabilities are only a murder or robbery motive.

Although I don’t go for the Accomplice Theory as you know my own opinion is that it’s either Wallace alone or Accomplice Theory. Although of course I wouldn’t completely count out other scenarios. I do believe that Parry’s alibi precludes him but some disagree of course.

Because no sound was heard and how Julia was positioned etc. it seems very likely she did not catch a burglar so I think that can be ruled out.

Good point but a proposer of the AT would say that an unexpected blow would have eliminated the possibility of Julia crying out. Simple burglary can be eliminated of course due to there being no signs of a break in.

So then you either have someone who went in there to murder Julia and staged the robbery, or someone who went in there to rob the home and planned to kill her in order to enable them to do that. So you either have someone with an interest in killing Julia for whatever reason, or someone who is willing to commit murder to steal money.

Intake your point. But because I’ve already mentioned the AT i won’t bother to keep inserting it as an addition.

Another possibility is the person did not know Wallace had a wife or thought she was not there and managed to enter the home without signs of break in. For me that’s difficult to imagine. Julia, in the house alone, being so careless with her own safety as to leave access to an intruder. Also, if someone got to know Wallace with the intent of burglary it’s difficult to imagine them not being aware of Julia.There was a housebreaker in the area and if only somewhat familiar with the Wallaces may well have thought he lived alone... Of course the issue still would be where Julia was found first and foremost. Agreed. A vital point. Would she ever go into the parlor of her own accord? She might have decided to have an hour playing the piano while William was out? Was she planning for or already had a visitor over? Was the coat really used to protect from the cold? If it was then it’s perhaps strange that she wasn’t wearing it when she went outside to the back gate with William. If this is the scenario then you have to imagine that the burglar checked around the house (or was somehow mega quiet in looting the box), was surprised to find Julia, and killed her with an unspecified blunt weapon... Would this attacker then grab the men's jacket and place it under her to frame the husband (not that this was the original plan, but a quick thinking decision)? I can’t see that’s as likely on the spur of the moment. How would he escape undetected? Did he live in one of the homes joining the back passage? Leave the poor old Johnston’s alone. Or had another place to go very close by where he was unlikely to be seen by anyone? Did he just cut through a tonne of alleys and parks? It was dark of course and as long as the killer didn’t act suspiciously. But of course a killer that took no precautions was more likely to have blood on him which might have showed up if he’d passed someone near to a street lamp. Then again, if he’d taken off an overcoat, killed Julia, then put it back on?

If you can place Julia in the parlor without having admitted a guest then it's possible. Would she set up the parlor for William's return for some unknown reason? I don’t know? Without knowing their habits it’s impossible to know if they would have considered it too late for a musical evening.



Because bloodied assailants were not seen then it makes it most likely someone lived in a house very close by or had a getaway car ready or something of that nature (or they planned to kill her and had means of accounting for this factor). For them to be unseen it's more probably they would leave that house by the back door and get to a safe spot where they're safe from being sighted within the shortest time possible...Backdoor has to be the likeliest exit. For me one of the points against the AT is that no one was seen or heard at the front door and would Julia really have wanted to set tongues wagging by admitting a strange man whilst William was out?

If Julia admitted the burglar WHO out of anyone she knows would be evil enough to plan her murder just to steal money? Good point. Was anyone particularly hard up? Why would they not invent a story to get both Wallace and his wife out of the home if they knew her? It might have been more difficult to come up with a plan to get them both out of the house? If someone invited them both out and they were robbed the police might have thought it a bit of a coincidence?I'm sure that would be especially easy as a family friend. Maybe that would be too suspicious or hard for a mysterious caller to achieve.

---

If it was a murder motive or planned killing...

It was said Julia had no enemies. How can anyone be truly sure of that? As I mentioned Amy is a potential enemy if she had a thing for/with William while Joseph was off in another country. She might have been but there’s no evidence that I can think of. Who might have built up the kind of resentment and anger needed for such a brutal murder? I can only think of one.

Did she have a secret lover? Given her age etc. you would think not. Women that old tend to not have sexual interest... Something which could've been problematic for Wallace who was probably still young enough to want sex. Not impossible but I just don’t see sex anywhere in this case.

Both Amy and William probably have a need for sex that is likely not being fulfilled by their spouses. Take careful note of that fact because it makes an affair way more likely and if there was an affair there is motive for one of them, or both of them, to kill Julia. Perhaps to silence her if she found out, or for Amy out of jealousy/spite. That is actually the most solid motive you can piece together from the case facts and common in real life. It’s difficult to see any opportunity for an affair. William’s routine’s were pretty much clockwork. The only thing that he did without Julia was chess.

COULD Gordon Parry have any reason to want Julia dead? Was his alibi coerced by his father? Would he really be so evil as to willingly kill her to steal a few pounds? Did William trick him into placing a call and have him in mind to take the fall for it? I can’t see any of it to be honest

---

I'm thinking the #1 suspicion would be a Wallace murder with the motive of keeping his wife quiet about the affair he was having with his brother's wife after she found out. You won’t be surprised that I disagree. I just don’t think that the Wallace’s marriage was a particularly happy one. I think that resentment built up in William over the years. I think it’s possible that due to his kidney problems Wallace felt that he might not have had long left and so had a fatalistic outlook. What had he got to look forward to but nursemaiding an old woman?

#2 suspicion to be honest I'm gonna go with the housebreaker. The housebreaker was likely a local given the homes hit and the known key issue. So he may have known Wallace lived there and his work habits, but for some reason was unaware of the reclusive Julia... Or may have known Julia lived there but wanted to capitalize on the collection schedule to maximize profits and come up with a riskier plan or even plan her death. Maybe they thought if they outright planned for Julia and Wallace to go out they'd be blatant suspects - or couldn't find a way to get both of them out under the guise of being a stranger... In that case I'd say the housebreaker was most probably Mr. Johnston but there's another possibility... I’d tend to see the Housebreaker as a younger man than Johnston. I strongly feel that this murder was too brutal. It seems personal and not just a means of getting away free.

Gordon Parry is a murderer or in the housebreaker syndicate.

I think either his alibi could have been coerced and he was a very evil person who didn't mind killing Julia for money. Or he had a friend involved. But in either case the plan was legitimately to kill Julia and then steal the money after killing her. But I don't think he'd willingly plot to kill her. I think that there were to many people at the Brine’s to coerce. Also we know his movements after he left the Brine’s. Everything he did that night speaks of a man going about a normal night (unless we accept Parkes of course.)

Maybe just meant for the pal to subdue her and it went wrong. Like maybe he hit her to knock her out and she seemed to stop breathing so he battered her to ensure she couldn't speak since now it'd be attempted murder (or even murder if she became conscious, gave her testimony, then died).

If this happened then again I'd think the jacket was placed to pin suspicion on Wallace. But why beneath her in a position that it couldn’t have fallen naturally?And Parry was the type of person to be involved in a housebreaking syndicate. He easily could have conspired with the other housebreakers to go in, wack the old lady unconscious, and take the money. Quite easily actually... Ofc the sneak thief idea is complere ridiculousness.

---

Why didn't a burglar take other items? If you just killed someone you may not want to risk being in possession of items that belonged to the murdered woman. Selling those items or being caught with them would be a death sentence. Money doesn't have a trail. But he didn’t even look elsewhere for money.

So there you have it. I most suspect Wallace with a motive related to an affair, or the housebreaker who might Johnston or Parry (Parry if involved in a housebreaking syndicate, planning to attack her then steal the money).

Johnston might also be in syndicate of course (multiple streets were hit with dupe key) so same thing as with Parry in that case. Just a question but do housebreaking syndicates exist?

Good thoughts as ever WWH. There’s so much going on and most things that any of us say can have some kind of alternative explanation. I’m still as certain as I can personally be that Wallace killed Julia alone because of an unhappy marriage and a build up of resentment leading him to think of a way out of a remaining few years of misery.

[etenguy]

Good thoughts as ever WWH. There’s so much going on and most things that any of us say can have some kind of alternative explanation. I’m still as certain as I can personally be that Wallace killed Julia alone because of an unhappy marriage and a build up of resentment leading him to think of a way out of a remaining few years of misery.

There are indeed some good points. But the phone call to the chess club seems important and doesn't feature (unless you believe the phone call was not connected and is entirely coincidental). It would for instance be highly indicative that it was not the local housebreaker. It would undermine that someone was trying to frame Wallace during the murder (else why provide a potential alternative suspect, the caller). It also gives Wallace his alibi, such as it is. It is also indicative that the caller knew Wallace (and therefore by extension that Julia existed).

I do agree that the two most likely potential motives are murder or robbery. The reason for the phone call seems to me most likely to provide an alibi for Wallace. I can see no strong reason to get Mr Wallace out of the house to commit a robbery in the knowledge that Mrs Wallace would be there. If that was the intention of the call it would seem superfluous since the house was only occupied by Mrs Wallace on the night the call was made. In any event, there were predictable times when both would be out of the house and that would seem the best opportunity to commit a robbery.

I am therefore of the view that murder was the motive, committed by someone who knew the Wallaces. If you start from that premise, motive murder, then it must have been Wallace or else Julia would have been murdered during the Chess tournament.